PLURALITY IN JAPANESE AND CHINESE*
Yasuki Uedaa and Tomoko Haraguchib
Nanzan Universitya and Nagoya Gakuin Universityb

1. Introduction
This paper presents a comparative analysis of plural markers and nominal constructionsin Japanese and Chinese. Japanese has some morphemes that represent plurality. The suffix-tati is one of them. Chinese also has a similar suffix, -men. They are akin to each other inmany ways. For example, they are attached to common nouns, proper nouns, and pronouns, as
exemplified in (1).
(1)

a. (Japanese)
gakusei-tati,
student-TATI

Taroo-tati,
Taroo-TATI

watasi-tati
I-TATI

b. (Chinese)
xuesheng-men, XiaoQiang-men, wo-men
student-MEN XiaoQiang-MEN I-MEN
Many researchers have cast doubt on the analysis of -tati and -men as ‘true’ plural
markers like -s in English (Chao 1968, Iljic 1998, and Martin 1988 among many others). Thisis because the plural markers in Japanese and Chinese have some unique properties that are
not observed with -s in English. For example, they yield a special plural interpretation when
they are attached to proper nouns. However, Li (1999) convincingly argues that -men is a‘true’ plural marker and that its unique interpretive properties are attributed to the Chinese
nominal structure and the morphological properties of the suffix.
In this paper, we build on Li’s analysis and investigate the syntax of -tati in comparison
with -men. We examine how syntactically similar or different -tati and -men are and whether-tati is a ‘true’ plural marker or not. We argue that -tati and -men differ in the positions where*

The earliest version of this paper was presented at the International Symposium of the CambridgeConneticut-Hyderabad-Nanzan-Siena-Tsinghua Consortium for Linguistics, held at the National
Tsinghua University, on December 15-17, 2007. The revised version was, then, presented at the
Nanzan-Cambridge-EFL Joint Seminar on Parametric Syntax and Acquisition, which was held at the
EFL University on January 25-27, 2008. We are grateful to the audiences, especially Ting-chi Tang,
C.-T. James Huang, Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, Hun-Tak Thomas Lee, Miao-Ling Hsieh, Ayesha Kidwai,
and Tanmoy Bhattacharya for helpful comments. Thanks also to I-Ta Chris Hsieh and Tzong-Hong
Jonah Lin. We are also indebted to Masatake Arimoto, Keiko Murasugi, Tomohiro Fujii, Tomoko
Kawamura, Kensuke Takita, Chisato Fuji, and Eriko Watanabe for their discussions. Finally, we wish
to thank our advisor Mamoru Saito for his instruction and patience. All errors are due to us.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2, 229–242©2008 Yasuki Ueda and Tomoko Haraguchi

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

they are generated and in the way they are attached to their hosts. Further, we argue that there
are two distinct -tatis and that one of them is a ‘true’ plural marker. Along with the plural
markers, we also discuss nominal structures in Japanese and Chinese. We show that one ofthe differences between -tati and -men can be well accounted for if we assume that Chineseand Japanese differ in the positions of a classifier projection (henceforce CLP).
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews Li’s (1999) analysis of -men andChinese nominal constructions. Then, we discuss the syntax of -tati in Section 3. This section
consists of two parts. In the first subsection, we extend Li’s analysis of Chinese nominal
construction to Japanese noun phrases. Then, we introduce Saito, Lin, and Murasugi’s (2006)
analysis of prenominal CLP in Japanese as an NP adjunct. This hypothesis enables us toaccount for the compatibility of CLP and -tati in Japanese. The second subsection discusses
the syntax of -tati. We first provide some data related to the recursion of -tati to argue that
there are two -tatis. One is generated as the head of NumP, and the other is generated as thehead of DP. Finally, we present more data to show that -tati and -men differ in the way they
are suffixed to words. Section 4 contains concluding remarks.
2. Chinese Nominal Construction and -MENThis section reviews Li’s (1999) argument that -men can be analyzed as a ‘true’ plural
marker like -s in English. Many researchers have cast doubt on the analysis of -men as a ‘true’plural marker because of its properties that are not observed with plural markers like -s (Chao
1968, and Iljic 1998 among many others). For instance, -men yields a special pluralinterpretation when they are attached to proper nouns. Consider the examples in (2).
(2) a. xuesheng-men
student-MEN‘the students’b. XiaoQiang-men
XiaoQiang-MEN‘XiaoQiang and his associates’
In (2a), xuesheng-men denotes a homogenous set of students just like the pluralized common
noun students does. In (2b), the proper noun with -men, XiaoQiang-men denotes aheterogeneous set of people including XiaoQiang. Following Mizuguchi (2004), we call thisinterpretation the associative interpretation. 1 Another unique property of -men is that it
cannot occur with a quantity expression when it is attached to a common noun, as in (3).

1

Li calls the special plural interpretation the collective interpretation.

-230-

Plurality in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda and T. Haraguchi)(3)* san-ge
xuesheng-men
three-CL student-MEN‘three students’Thus, there are some considerations that argue against analyzing -men as astraightforward plural marker. Nevertheless, Li argues that -men is a ‘true’ plural marker. She
proposes that the patterns that -men exhibits, in contrast with -s, can be attributed to theChinese nominal structure and the morphological properties of -men. In her analysis, English
and Chinese have essentially the same nominal structure except for the presence of CLP in thelatter. DP, NumP, and NP are projected in both languages. In Chinese, however, CLP is
projected between NumP and NP when a classifier appears in a noun phrase. Compare thetwo nominal structures in (4).
(4) a. English

b. Chinese
DP

D

DP
NumP

D

Num’

NumP
Num’

Num

NP

-s

N

Num

CLP
P
-men CLNP
N

Plurality is specified in Num in both English and Chinese. Where the two languages differ isthe category on which plurality is realized on the surface. In English, plurality surfaces as -s
on N. In Chinese, plurality is realized as -men on N or D. That is, -men can be attached to D
as well as to N. This accounts for the existence of the associative interpretation in Chinese.
Let us consider Li’s analysis in more detail to see how the plural markers are suffixed totheir hosts to yield the plural and/or associative interpretations. In English, common nouns are
suffixed with -s through N-to-Num movement. Common nouns obligatorily move from N to
Num when Num contains -s, or the plural feature. The derivation of students is illustrated in
(5).
(5)

DP
D

NumP
Num’
Num

NP

-s

N
student-231-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Li proposes that in Chinese, common nouns are suffixed with the plural marker throughN-to-D movement.2 The derivation of xuesheng-men ‘student-men’ is shown in (6).
(6)

DP
D

NumP
Num’
Num

NP

-men

N
student

In contrast, proper nouns are suffixed to -men through Num-to-D movement of -men, or theplural feature. More specifically, proper nouns like XiaoQiang are assumed to be basegenerated in D, and -men moves from Num to D to be suffixed to proper nouns.
Li’s analysis of Chinese noun phrases and -men accounts for why a common noun with-men cannot be preceded by a quantity expression, yielding the equivalent of ‘three students’in English. The relevant example in (3) is repeated in (7).
(7)* san-ge
xuesheng-men
three-CL student-MEN‘three students’Expressions like (7) are out because the affixation of -men to a common noun is possible only
when N moves up to D through Num. If N moves up to D, then it should precede the numeral
because the numeral is generated in the spec of NumP by assumption. The word order in (7) is
possible only when N stays in situ, as in (8).
(8)

DP
D

NumP
three

Num’

Num

CLP
P
-men CLNP
ge

N
student

2

The movement to D here is motivated by the fact that a common noun with -men always receives
definite interpretation, another characteristic of -men not observed with -s in English. See Li (1999)
for details.

-232-Plurality in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda and T. Haraguchi)

In English, on the other hand, quantity expressions can precede plural-marked nouns because
N does not have to move further up to D. The word order as in three students is obtained
when N raises to Num.
Li’s analysis of the Chinese nominal constructions with CLP and -men accounts foranother puzzling fact. In Chinese, quantity expressions can occur after proper nouns with-men, as shown in (9a), but cannot follow common nouns with -men, in (9b).
(9) a. XiaoQiang-men san-ge(ren)
XiaoQiang-MEN three-CL person‘XiaoQiang (them) three’b. * xuesheng-men
student-MEN

san-ge(ren)three-CL person‘three students’
Recall that N raises to D through Num when a common nouns is suffixed with -men, andthat Num moves to D when -men is suffixed to a proper noun. Then, in (9b), xuesheng‘student’ must move up from N to D through Num crossing the classifier ge. This movement
violates the Head Movement Constraint in the sense of Travis (1984) and Chomsky (1986), as
shown in (10).
(10)

DP
D

NumP
three

Num’

Num

CLP
P
-men CLNP
ge

N
student

In contrast, there is no illicit movement in the derivation of expressions like (9a). Num moves
up to D without crossing any intervening head when proper nouns are suffixed with -men.
Li’s analysis of the Chinese noun phrases and -men thus captures the contrast in (9).

-233-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

3.

Japanese Nominal Construction and -TATI

3.1

Japanese Nominal Construction

In Section 2, we have reviewed Li’s (1999) analysis of nominal construction and theplural marker in Chinese. In this subsection, we discuss the Japanese nominal construction.
One important difference between -men and -tati is that the Japanese counterpart of (7) isgrammatical, as shown in (11).
(11)

san-nin-no
gakusei-tati
three-CL-NO student-TATI‘three students’That is, a quantity expression may precede a common noun with -tati. We show that thisdifference follows from the hypothesis proposed in Saito, Lin, and Murasugi (2006) that CLP
in Japanese, in distinction with Chinese, is an NP adjunct.3
It has been argued in the literature that Japanese and Chinese noun phrases are quite
similar in structure (Kitagawa and Ross (1982) and many others). For example, they useclassifiers for quantity expressions. However, if Japanese and Chinese noun phrases haveessentially the same structures except for the Head Parameter, the contrast between (7) and(11) cannot be accounted for. Suppose that (11) has the structure in (12), which parallels (8),the structure Li (1999) assigns to (7).
(12)

DP
NumP
three

D

Num’

CLP

Num

NP

CL -tatiNninstudent
In (12), N must move up to Num to obtain the correct word order. This movement, however,violates the Head Movement Constraint just as in the case of (9b). If N stays in situ, gakusei‘student’ precedes the classifier nin and follows the numeral. Then, we can never obtain thecorrect word order. Thus, (11) must have a structure distinct from (7). In particular, the3This was initially pointed out by I-Ta Chris Hsieh in his comments to Saito, Lin, and Murasugi(2006). It was this suggestion that inspired us to work on the comparison of -men and -tati.

-234-

Plurality in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda and T. Haraguchi)

grammaticality of (11) suggests that the classifier head should not intervene between N andNum.
The desired structure for (11) is in fact proposed by Saito, Lin, and Murasugi (2006).
They propose that in Japanese a numeral and a classifier form a constituent and that it is an
NP adjunct. According to their proposal, (11) has the structure shown in (13).
(13)

DP
NumP

D

Num’
NP
CLP

Num
NP -tati

three-nin-no N
student
One piece of evidence for this structure has to do with the possible positions of quantity
expression.4 Consider the sentences in (14).
(14) a. Taroo-wa san-satu-no hon-okatta
Taroo-TOP three-CL-NO book-ACC bought‘Taroo bought three books.’b. San-satu,
three-CL

Taroo-wa
hon-o
katta
Taroo-TOP book-ACC bought

As shown in (14b), a quantity expression can appear independently in a position not adjacentto the associate noun. In Chinese, however, there is no parallel phenomenon, as indicated in(15).
(15) a. Zhangsan
Zhangsanmai-lebuy-PERF

san-benthree-CL

shubook‘Zhangsan bought three books.’b. * San-ben,three-CL

ZhangsanZhangsanmai-leshu
buy-PERF book

Since the numeral and the classifier do not form a constituent in Chinese, a quantity
4

A more decisive argument is based on the different patterns Japanese and Chinese show with
N’-ellipsis. See Saito, Lin, and Murasugi (2006) for the details.

-235-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

expression cannot appear separated from the associate noun. The contrast between (14) and(15) suggests that Japanese and Chinese differ in the structure of quantity expressions.
In (13), the nominal structure based on Saito, Lin, and Murasugi’s (2006) proposal, we
have the correct word order. There is no intervening head between N and Num. Hence,nothing blocks the suffixation of -tati to the noun whether N is raised to Num or -tati hops
onto the noun. The grammaticality of (11), thus, follows from the analysis of Japanesequantity expressions as NP adjuncts, and provides supporting evidence for Saito, Lin, andMurasugi’s (2006) proposal.
3.2

-TATI

As discussed at the outset of this paper, -tati and -men have many overlapping properties(see Ishii (2000) and Kurafuji (2004) for relevant discussions). For example, both can be
suffixed to common nouns, proper nouns, and pronouns.5 The relevant examples shown in(1) are repeated in (16).
(16) a. (Japanese)
gakusei-tati,
student-TATI

Taroo-tati,
Taroo-TATI

watasi-tati
I-TATI

b. (Chinese)
xuesheng-men, XiaoQiang-men, wo-men
student-MEN XiaoQiang-MEN I-MEN
Another similarity is the range of interpretations the plural markers yield. Just like -men, -tati
yields the plural interpretation when attached to common nouns, and it yields the associativeinterpretation when attached to proper nouns, as exemplified in (17).
(17) a. gakusei-tati
students-TATI‘the students’b. Taroo-tati
Taroo-TATI‘Taroo and his associates’
The two suffixes, however, are different in some respects. A prominent difference concerns
the multiple occurrence of -tati. In Japanese, common nouns and proper nouns can take morethan one plural marker, as exemplified in (18).

5Both also select animate nouns. See Kurafuji (2004) on this point.

-236-

Plurality in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda and T. Haraguchi)(18) a. gakusei-tati-tati
student-TATI-TATI‘the students and their associates’
b. Taroo-tati-tati
Taroo-TATI-TATI‘Taroo and his associates and their associates’
In contrast, no parallel phenomenon is observed in Chinese, as indicated in (19).
(19) a. * xuesheng-men-men
student-MEN-MEN
b. * XiaoQiang-men-men
XiaoQIang-MEN-MEN
The contrast shown in (18) and (19) suggests that -tati and -men are syntactically different. In
this subsection, we discuss the syntax of -tati in comparison with -men.
Let us first take a closer look at the multiple occurrence of -tati to examine its possible
syntactic position. In both of the examples in (18), the additional markers yield the associativeinterpretation. That is, recursion is allowed only when the second occurrence of -tati has theassociative interpretation. It is impossible to have two occurrences of -tati with pluralinterpretation as shown in (20).
(20)* gakusei-tati-tati
student-TATI(PL)-TATI(PL)‘The students’

The impossibility of multiple marking for the plural interpretation in (20) can be accounted
for if we assume that multiple occurrence of NumP in a noun phrase is not allowed. This
comes into play in Chinese, too. Since -men is the head of NumP, the multiple occurrence of-men is not allowed.
But there remains a fact to account for. A noun phrase can have more than one plural
marker for the associative interpretation in Japanese. If the analysis of plural -tati as Num ison the right track, then we cannot identify the additional associative -tati as the head of
NumP. We propose then that the associative -tati is a D on the assumption that the recursionof DP is possible. This is consistent with the fact that the associative -tati always occurs on
the right edge of a noun phrase, as the ungrammaticality of (21) shows.
(21)* gakusei-tati-tati
student-TATI(ASS)-TATI(PL)

Given that Japanese is head-final, (21) suggests that the associative -tati is in a position higher-237-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

than Num. If the plural -tati is a Num, and the associative -tati is a D, the former must bewithin the complement of the latter, and hence, must precede it. Thus, the ungrammaticalityof (21) is predicted.
We provide two pieces of supporting evidence for the analysis of -tati as two distinct
morphemes, one being a Num and the other a D. The first evidence is the existence of a plural
suffix that yields only the plural interpretation in Japanese. Consider the examples in (22).
(22) a. sensei-gatateacher-GATA‘the teachers’
b. * Smith-kyoozyu-gata
Smith-Professor-GATA‘Professor Smith and his associates’
As in (22), the plural marker -gata can be attached only to common nouns to yield the pluralinterpretation. The multiple occurrence of -gata is impossible, as expected.
(23)* sensei-gata-gatateacher-GATA-GATA

Given our proposal, we can analyze -gata straightforwardly as a variant of the plural-tati, that is, as a Num. On the other hand, if there is only one -tati, a more complicatedaccount would be required to explain the difference between -gata and -tati.
The second supportive evidence concerns the associative interpretation obtained inplural-marked common nouns in Japanese. Nakanishi and Tomioka (2004) and Mizushima(2007) observe that common nouns with -tati can have the associative interpretation in
addition to the plural interpretation. This is shown in (24).
(24)

gakusei-tati-ga
koogisita
student-TATI-NOM protested‘The students (and their associates) protested.’

Note first that a common noun in Japanese can have plural interpretation by itself. Thus, (25)is ambiguous as indicated.
(25)

gakusei-ga
student-Nom

koogisita
protested‘The student(s) protested.’
This indicates that a plural Num can be null or be analyzed as -tati. If gakusei can be a DP
with a null plural Num (meaning ‘the students’) and the associative -tati is a D that takes a DP
-238-

Plurality in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda and T. Haraguchi)

complement, the associative interpretation of (24) is in fact predicted. The precise structure
for gakusei-tati in (24) will be as in (26).
(26)

DP
DP
NumP

D
D

-tati (ASS)NP

Num [+DEF]

N

PL

student
Thus, the analysis of the associative -tati as a D renders it possible to capture the associativeinterpretation of common nouns with -tati.
In contrast with Japanese, the associative interpretation is not observed with common
nouns followed by -men, as shown in (27).
(27)

haizi-men zhengzai
zai-gongyuan wan
child-MEN PRES.PROG in-park
play‘The children are playing in the park.’

This is also predicted by our analysis. In Chinese also, a common noun can have pluralinterpretation by itself. Thus, a plural Num head can be null or be analyzed as -men. However,
if haizi is a DP with a null plural Num, then the Num position is filled and consequently,
further suffixation of -men should be impossible. This is so because -men, unlike -tati, isalways a Num head and never takes a DP complement. Thus, the absence of the associativeinterpretation in plural common nouns with -men provide further support for Li’s (1999)
analysis of -men as a Num head.
Now we focus on the relationship between the plural markers and their hosts, particularlyon the attachment of the plural markers to their hosts. Recall that the suffixation of -men to its
host requires the head movement of N to Num or of Num to D in Li’s analysis. N raises to
Num when common nouns are suffixed with -men, and Num moves up to D when proper
nouns are suffixed with -men. However, there is evidence that no head movement is required
for the suffixation of -tati, and that -tati is combined with its host by affix hopping or
phonological merger. 6,7
6

Then, an intervening head between -tati and its host does not induce a violation of the Head
Movement Constraint, but breaks the adjacency between the two elements, which is required for affix
hopping.

7

The data come from Martin (1988) and Ishii (2000). They argue that -tati is a phrasal suffix.

-239-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Let us first consider the following example, where -tati serves as a plural marker forconjoined common nouns:(28)

zyuuroku-nin-no sakka, hyooronka, sisooka, kagakusha-tati
sixteen-CL-NO writer critic
thinker scientist-TATI‘sixteen writers, critics, thinkers, and scientists’In (28), the quantity expression quantifies a sequence of conjoined nouns, and -tati marks thewhole expression as plural. Then, the plural -tati in Num may take the conjoined NPs and aquantity expression as its complement, as in (29).
(29)

Num’
NP
CLP

Num
NP

NP, NP, NP, NP,
N N

N N

If the rightmost N raises to Num, the movement should violate the coordinate structure
constraint and (28) is incorrectly predicated to be ungrammatical. On the other hand, there is
no problem with affix hopping if it only requires adjacency. Note that the English counterpartof (28) is totally ungrammatical, as shown in (30).
(30)* sixteen writer, critic, thinker, scientists‘targeted meaning: sixteen writers, critics, thinkers and scientists’This is consistent with the analysis that a common noun and -s is combined through head
movement (Delfitto and Schroten (1991) and Li (1999)).
A similar fact obtains with the associative -tati. (31) shows that it can take conjoined
proper nouns as its complement.
(31)

Taroo to Hanako-tati
Taroo and Hanako-TATI‘Taroo and Hanako, and their associates’

Again, if Taroo and Hanako are Ds, the latter should not be able to move to -tati out of thecoordinate structure. Thus, the associative -tati also seems to hop onto the adjacent D. As
expected, the Chinese counterpart of (31) is ungrammatical. This is shown in (32).

-240-

Plurality in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda and T. Haraguchi)

(32)

* A-Q
A-Q

he XiaoQiang-men
and XiaoQiang-MEN‘A-Q and XiaoQiang and their associates’
The example can only mean ‘A-Q, XiaQiang, and XiaoQiang’s assocaites’. This follows from
Li’s (1999) analysis. If -men is the Num in a DP headed by XiaoQiang, then it should be able
to move to D. But there is no way for it to raise to a conjunction of DPs. Given that -men isalways a Num head and never takes a DP complement, it is in fact hard to imagine what
structure (32) may have.
4.

Concluding Remarks

This paper has pursued the comparative syntax of the plural markers and noun phrases inJapanese and Chinese. We have argued that Japanese and Chinese nominal constructions are
essentially the same except for the structure and the position of quantity expressions. In
Japanese, quantity expressions are best analyzed as NP adjuncts, as proposed in Saito, Lin,and Murasugi (2006). In Chinese, quantity expressions do not form a constituent, and aclassifier heads its own projection in the nominal structure. We have also argued that -tati and-men are structurally different despite their superficial similarities. In Japanese, the plural
marker that yields the plural interpretation is generated in Num, and the plural marker thatyields the associative interpretation is generated in D. In Chinese, the plural marker is always
generated in Num. Further, -tati and -men are different in the way they are attached to theirhosts. In Japanese, no head movement is required when -tati is suffixed to common nouns orproper nouns: it simply hops onto the adjacent noun. In Chinese, the head movement of Numor N is required for the suffixation of -men.
Finally, we would like to make a small remark on the categorical status of the associative-tati. In Li’s analysis, -men is a ‘true’ plural marker like -s in English in the sense that it is aplural feature in Num. We argue that -tati, on the other hand, can be generated in Num and D.
What we have shown is that the associative -tati occurs in a head position higher than Num,and further that it can appear recursively. For this reason, we proposed that it is a D that takes
a DP complement, but whether it is really a D or some other category remains to be seen. We
must leave a more precise characterization of the categorical status of the associative -tati for
future research.

References
Baker, M. C. (2003) Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Cheng, L.-S. L., and R. Sybesma. (1999) ‘Bare and Not-So-Bare Nouns and the Structure of NP,’
Linguistic Inquiry 30, 4, 509-542.

-241-

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3, Vol. 2

Chierchia, G. (1998) “Reference to Kinds across Languages,” Natural Language Semantics 6,
339-405.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Delfitto, D. (2006) “Bare Plurals,” in M. Everaert, and H. V. Riemsdijk eds., The Blackwell
Companion to Syntax. Vol. 1, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA, 214-259.
Delfitto, D., and J. Schroten. (1991) ‘Bare Plurals and the Number Affix in DP,’ Probus 3, 155-185.
Deprez, V. (2005) “Morphological Number, Semantic Number and Bare Nouns,” Lingua 115,
857-883.
Fabb, N. (1984) Syntactic Affixation, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Hsieh, M.-L. (2007) The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in Chinese: Number and Referentiality,
unpublished ms., National Taiwan Normal University.
Iljic, R. (1994) “Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: Two Markers of Plurality,” Linguistics 32,
91-116.
Ishii, Y. (2000) Plurality and Definiteness in Japanese, unpublished ms., Kanda University ofInternational Studies.
Kawashima, R. (1998) “The Structure of Extended Nominal Phrases: The Scrambling of Numerals,
Approximate Numerals, and Quantifiers in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7,
1-26.
Kitagawa, C. and C. N. G. Ross (1982) “Prenominal modification in Chinese and Japanese,”
Linguistic Analysis 9, 19-53.
Kitahara, H. (1993) “Numeral Classifier Phrase Inside DP and the Specificity Effect,” Japanese/
Korean Linguistics 3, 171-186.
Kurafuji, T. (2004) “Plural Morphemes, Definiteness, and the Notion of Semantic Parameter,”
Language and Linguistics 5, 211-242.
Landman, F. (1997) “Plurality,” in Shalom Lapin ed., Contemporary Semantic Theory, Blackwell
Publishers, Malden, MA, 425-257.
Li, Y-H. A. (1999) “Plurality in Classifier Language,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 75-99.
Martin, S. (1988) A Reference Grammar of Japanese, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Mizushima, N. (2007) nihongo no fukusû hyôshiki tachi no imikaishaku to kozô. M. A. Theses.
Nanzan University.
Nakanishi, K., and S. Tomioka. (2004) “Japanese Plurals Are Exceptional,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 13, 113-140.
Ritter, E. (1991) “Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew,”
Syntax and Semantics 25, 37-62.
Saito, M, and K. Murasugi. (1990) “N'-Deletion in Japanese: Preliminary Study,” Japanese/ Korean
Linguistics 1, 258-286.
Saito, M., and T.-H. J. Lin, and K. Murasugi. (2006) N'-Ellipsis and the Structure of Noun Phrases in
Chinese and Japanese. Presented at the International Conference on East Asian Linguistics,
University of Toronto. November 10-12, 2006.
Simpson, A. (2002) “On the Status of Modifying DE and the Structure of the Chinese DP,” in S.-W.
Tang, and C.-S. L. Lin eds., On the Formal Way to Chinese Language, CLSI, Stanford, CA.
Travis, L. (1984) Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

-242-